3 ms·

To the best of my knowledge (and a reading of the actual law text), the 1976 Coastal Access Act doesn't require private owners to provide and maintain facilitie

To the best of my knowledge (and a reading of the actual law text), the 1976 Coastal Access Act doesn't require private owners to provide and maintain facilities for public beaches -- it simply doesn't prevent them from doing so. The Deeneys chose to make Martins Beach a business, and more than likely started doing so before the Coastal Access Act passed. Khosla is absolutely within his rights to stop maintaining "the parking lot and other facilities in operable and safe condition"; the battle is over whether he's within his rights to block access to the beach entirely just because he can't find a way to turn a profit from it -- and whether the limited access he's currently granting is enough to meet the law's requirements.

sdnlafkjh34rw 7y ago
Yes this is my understanding as well. He just needs to give access. He doesn't need to provide any infrastructure (which would be unfair to any homeowner).
- gwbas1c 7y ago
  > Yes this is my understanding as well. He just needs to give access. He doesn't need to provide any infrastructure (which would be unfair to any homeowner) Which makes me inherently distrustful of how the media portrays this article. What does "give access" mean? I've encountered a narrow footpath path along a property line in Hawaii to "give access" that was mainly used by people in the neighborhood. If I remember correctly, both beachfront properties on either side had fences. In San Diego, I encountered a narrow stairway between two condo buildings; but there were so many public parks and streets that came up to the beach that I didn't understand the point. I'm not a lawyer, but could Vinod satisfy the law by having a narrow footpath along his property line?